Discuss NICEIC and ELECSA reject third party inspection scheme.... in the Certification NICEIC, NAPIT, Stroma, BECSA Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

But what of the other scheme operators? Could be a little niche market for them ......
 
NICEIC and ELECSA opt out of third party Inspector scheme over safety fears
NICEIC and ELECSA will not be operating a Third Party Inspection scheme amid fears that it will undermine registered electricians.

Last month the DCLG announced amendments to the Building Regulations which set out the introduction of third party certification schemes for electrical work in homes. The scheme will form part of the amended regulations from April 6.

However NICEIC and ELECSA believe the final scheme announced by the DCLG falls well short of the standards and safeguards that will enhance electrical safety and are workable for the trade. They have therefore decided not to operate a scheme.

“At the simplest level we do not wish to see DIY’ers carry out potentially dangerous electrical work. It should be left to competent electricians who will install and test their installations to the wiring regulations,” explains Emma Clancy, CEO Certsure, which operates the NICEIC and ELECSA brands.

Under the review of Part P in 2011, third party inspectors were put forward as a way for DIY’ers and those not registered with a competent persons scheme to have their work checked and certified. The inspectors will be registered on a scheme and assessed to certain criteria, but the scheme will not be officially accredited.
“The third party inspector scheme will not be UKAS accredited, meaning there will be no independent verification that third party inspector scheme operators are doing the job to the required standards,” added Emma.

“It makes a mockery of competent persons’ schemes and the tens of thousands of registered electricians already in the marketplace. There are glaring holes in the scheme, such as the amount of time an installation can be live before it is checked, potentially endangering the householder.

“As a competent person scheme operator, we believe that the third party approved inspector scheme in its current guise is flawed. The review of Part P in 2011 proposed the reduction of notifiable work in dwellings, which we believe has weakened the regulation. Now the third party inspector scheme undermines the working domestic electrician.”

Electrical contractors have also expressed their concern as regards who is ultimately responsible for an installation that has been checked by them but wasn’t installed by them, especially if there is anything wrong with it. There are also real questions as to why DIY’ers would seek to get their work checked in the first place, especially if they are, by nature, inclined to save money on hiring a competent electrician.

“It is disappointing that the building regulations around electrical work in the home have been further confused and potentially weakened by the proposed introduction of third party inspections. Householders should not attempt to install electrical work, it is the job of competent electricians to do it safely,” concludes Emma
More verbal diarrhea from our NICEIC friends!!


How they have the cheek to call this a ''Mockery'' of the competent persons scheme, i just don't know!! Not that i support any type of third party inspection scheme, but perhaps before slating anyone else's proposals, best they look in to their own back yard, as they have plenty of their own areas that can be put squarely and fairly into the realms of being classed as mockery to qualified electricians...
 
This has been known for over a month, and there is a rumour that someone you have never heard of will be getting Govt. approval to run the scheme.

NAPIT did apply, reluctantly, as they expected NICEIC and ELECSA to both apply too, but it seems NAPIT will not be getting it, leaving 2 other interested parties in the running, neither of which has more than a very small interest in the electrical CPS's currently.
 
I struggle to see the difference between a qualified electrician to do a third party check and the LABC send out a third party inspector.
Surely if you go to check some one else's work you will be extra vigilant and not sign any thing off until it's 100% which could caused the customer more money in the end and make them think about using a registered electrician next time.
 
Why do they even want it anyway? It's just obviously a s*** idea. Would you let any old anybody do a kidney transplant then get a surgeon who never saw them do it to sign it off? Why can't they put in some scheme purely to cover the contingency where the original competent sparky has done a runner / gets ill / goes bust / falls under a bus / becomes a nun and leave it at that? Is that beyond the wit of man?
 
Why do they even want it anyway? It's just obviously a s*** idea. Would you let any old anybody do a kidney transplant then get a surgeon who never saw them do it to sign it off? Why can't they put in some scheme purely to cover the contingency where the original competent sparky has done a runner / gets ill / goes bust / falls under a bus / becomes a nun and leave it at that? Is that beyond the wit of man?
lol....lol...

do you really think that this is the scams priority/school of thought on this one?....lol...

come on Nick...stop being so naive will ya...

its all about the dough...and how much they stand to lose.....lol

££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
 
Why do they even want it anyway? It's just obviously a s*** idea. Would you let any old anybody do a kidney transplant then get a surgeon who never saw them do it to sign it off? Why can't they put in some scheme purely to cover the contingency where the original competent sparky has done a runner / gets ill / goes bust / falls under a bus / becomes a nun and leave it at that? Is that beyond the wit of man?


The only way to do that is to make it illegal to work on electrical installations unless you are registered with a scheme of some sort otherwise what happens when a unregistered electrician does some work and not register it
 
Any scheme getting involved with such a practise would be bringing all sorts of trouble on to their doorsteps in time , I should imagine whoever gets involved with it would not last too long , Don't know where you would stand with indemnity insurance , doubt if it would even cover you ,,,
 
The only way to do that is to make it illegal to work on electrical installations unless you are registered with a scheme of some sort otherwise what happens when a unregistered electrician does some work and not register it

We're only talking within the scope of LABC notifiable work here, where it is illegal to do it and fail to notify.
 
The certificate you use is a EICR which you can state that you were not the installer and not responsible for the installation just the testing.
This is exactly what LABC do.
 
Any scheme getting involved with such a practise would be bringing all sorts of trouble on to their doorsteps in time , I should imagine whoever gets involved with it would not last too long , Don't know where you would stand with indemnity insurance , doubt if it would even cover you ,,,

Why would that be the case ?, apart from being against the scams vested interest that is.

We already have a sort of 3rd party notification now, for example where the previous spark is either not registered or has walked off the job and we are asked to provide an EICR for BC.

Although I am not defending 3rd party sign offs by any means I would LMFAO if the DCLG made it mandatory for the scams to provide this service.
 
Well I am pleased to say I would not get involved with signing off someone else's work , there are ways around it with LABC as said with an eicr , but that to me is all that can be done ..
 
Well I am pleased to say I would not get involved with signing off someone else's work , there are ways around it with LABC as said with an eicr , but that to me is all that can be done ..

Well no, neither do I Ray, but I have done the odd EICR for BC purposes.
The point is that the scams are not wanting this, not for safety reasons as they would have us believe, turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

The reason the DCLG wanted this in the first place was also about money, in saving LAs money by not having to do the inspections and tests theselves.
Most LABCs/BIs did not have enough sparks to do this, and had to pay for 3rd party electricians to come in and do it for them, which is no different to what was proposed in that the scams took over this responsibility.

The scams were (as far as I know) mulling it over to see if they could screw us (registered electricians) over for more money, if you were wanting this type of work, by offering additional courses,criteria and/or 'paid for' hoops to jump through etc., they must have calculated that they had more to lose than they would gain by doing it.

As always, follow the money.
 

Reply to NICEIC and ELECSA reject third party inspection scheme.... in the Certification NICEIC, NAPIT, Stroma, BECSA Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock